I caught a segment on The World and Everything In It recently featuring Robert Woodson. He is a black leader who was around for the Civil Rights movement and remembers Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. personally. He has worked for helping those in poverty improve their position through empowerment rather than subsidy.

The basic premise is to look at the poor neighborhoods. Study what the

What he said made a lot of sense. I looked him up and found links and contributions on a number of other sites.

I’m disappointed that the Supreme Court partially ruled against traditional marriage in their decision today. Thankfully they didn’t make a wholesale ruling in favor of so-called same-sex marriage. They still allowed for states to define marriage for themselves.

As far as California’s Prop 8 is concerned, the Court dismissed the appeal. This seems somewhat ambiguous. Prop 8 was a majority vote for an amendment to the California state constitution in favor of traditional marriage between only one man and one woman. A federal judge declared the amendment unconstitutional. The governor refused to appeal this ruling essentially thumbing their noses at the majority popular vote. Conservative groups appealed the federal lower court ruling to the Supreme Court. This appeal was dismissed.

The basis for appealing the dismissal was lack of precedent. Apparently SCOTUS hasn’t before entertained appeals of state laws that were not being defended by the state itself.

So on one hand, SCOTUS has affirmed states to determine a definition of marriage as the state sees fit. On the other hand, the Court didn’t slap down a lower federal court for dictating to California what sort of definition of marriage would be considered constitutional… Ambivalence? I would say somewhat biased toward the redefinition of marriage side.

Hopefully this decision will galvanize further action to strengthen traditional marriage. One way to do this is to sign the Manhattan Declaration.

This crime is really too horrific to dwell on comfortably, but it is an example of what happens when human life is thought to be cheap. Kermit Gosnell is on trial for the murder of infants who survived their late-term abortions. He uses a procedure called snipping which basically involves cutting the baby’s spinal cord with scissors. While this sounds like the stuff of horror movies, it is real life. The acts are not denied. It is more of a matter of whether this behavior is wrong in the eyes of the law. This is a mirror held up for the American people to consider what happens when we say it is okay to kill certain innocent humans. Where do we draw the line? Please go to Colson Center to learn more about what we can do to stop this kind of heinous crime. The documentary about this crime is called 3801 Lancaster… the street address of the clinic.

English: Rep. Albert Wynn (left) joins Gloria Feldt (right), President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, on the steps of the Supreme Court, to rally in support of the pro-choice movement on the Anniversary of Roe v. Wade (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Although widely criticized from both sides, the callous video celebrating 40 years of abortion-rights Roe v. Wade featuring actor Mehcad Brooks dovetailed perfectly with the Marxist call for the “community of women” in which the Communist Manifesto basically calls for women to have no restriction on who, when, and for how much they will sleep with men. Really what they meant was for women to be community property. I can imagine that this sounds great to an amoral Marxist man but what woman feels properly valued in that state? If you don’t believe me read it for yourself below. Then ask yourself if the current state of morality on high school and college campuses more closely approximates the “Communist ideal” or a practice that is actually healthy for women?

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce free love; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized system of free love. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of free love springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

In the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. I, like most other Americans, want to express my shock, sadness, and sympathy to the grieving survivors. My prayers have been with you since I first heard of the tragedy.

I would also like to add my voice to the meaningful debate about what should be done about school shootings. The most important part of the conversation should not center on guns, but on the content we emphasize in our schools and media. The secondary part of the conversation, which many would like to make primary is what to do to make our schools safer from attackers.

First, about the society we are influencing with media and education. As a teacher I cannot help but think that we must stop teaching the lie that there is no right or wrong. We cannot teach the lie that humans are just advanced animals and should not be treated with special dignity and respect. This is the same line of thinking that Hitler used to justify his extermination of so many Jews. Teaching morals, the difference between right and wrong, and the fact that we will have to answer for our actions in either this life or the next would help our nation more than any additional gun laws.

We must not allow the liberal bloc to use this tragedy as an opportunity to disarm America. I agree with Wayne LaPierre and Louie Gomert. There is a reason why these malevolent shooters go to schools and malls and movie theaters. They do not go to local hunting clubs, shooting ranges, or police stations. The shooters go where there will be no armed resistance. People bent on this kind of violence will obtain weapons whether or not there are laws in place.

My proposed solution to protecting our schools is to arm school staff members. It is time for us to put a comprehensive firearms training program in place in our nation’s schools. Every school building should have trained and armed staff members who can respond immediately to this kind of heinous violence. Arming school staff members whether teachers, administrators, or classified staff would be much more cost effective than hiring an entire new group of officers to be at the school. The costs would include training for the staff members and for the weapons themselves. I am impressed with the courage displayed by those teachers and principals who attempted to shield and protect their students with their wits and in many cases with their own bodies. Wouldn’t it have been better if those teachers had been armed with some means of taking out this unhinged madman?

For the 10/15/2012 presidential debate I thought that both candidates reached out to their bases and showed up with their debate faces on. I cannot say that either candidate was a clear winner, but Romney did a good job of keeping the his focus on setting out his plan and making the President answer for his record.

What we really need here in America is a return to biblical values and commitment to marriage and righteousness in our personal lives. What we need is young men and women who are willing to deny their urges for selfishness, immoral sexual fulfillment, and useless distraction. We need young people who are strong in character that will choose to live a responsible life, marry, and lead families under God.

Official portrait of United States Health and Human Services Secretary . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Does the freedom of religion only apply to churches not to individuals? How do they think the HHS mandate exemption is not applicable to any organization besides churches? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Does HHS think that they don’t have to follow the 1st Amendment because they’re not Congress? They represent the fourth branch of government: the bureaucracy. Since they have piggybacked the HHS mandate onto Obamacare it stands to reason that it is a direct violation of the first amendment.
Actually the problem is that sexual freedoms are running afoul of religious freedoms. Or maybe we should think of it as religious freedoms running afoul of sexual freedom. With the HHS mandate Kathleen Sebelius has made it clear that sexual freedom must trump religious freedom. That’s probably why our founding fathers listed freedom of sexuality before freedom of religion in our Constitution. Of course not! Sexual freedom is not listed in the Constitution. That freedom along with the right of privacy on which abortion on demand is predicated was superimposed on the Constitution by modern courts.